SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Insurance companies contribute to the climate crisis through their financial choices, and then expect frontline communities to foot the bill. This must stop.
The Los Angeles area began this year with some of the worst wildfires in its history. Dozens of people were killed and 200,000 were displaced. About 40,000 acres and 12,300 structures, including houses, were burned. The city endured immense emotional and physical damage. Yet, many property owners in the city find themselves with little recourse for financial compensation.
In fact, over the past five years, insurance companies like State Farm, Farmers, Chubb, Liberty Mutual, and Allstate have all refused to renew policies for innumerable homeowners in the Los Angeles area, leaving residents without adequate protection for their homes. By July of 2024, State Farm alone had dropped 1,600 clients residing in the Pacific Palisades ZIP code, where damage from the fires would be some of the worst. Soaring home insurance prices have also forced lower- and middle-income residents to make the impossible decision of refusing insurance for their homes. In the wake of the most recent fires, many are not only left devastated by the destruction of their homes and the uprooting of their lives, but they are also financially stranded in the disaster’s aftermath.
All of these horrible consequences stem from a simple rule that defines much of the home insurance industry’s dealings with the public: Increased risk means increased prices. In more disaster-prone areas, the likelihood of insurance companies having to compensate homeowners is heightened by the prevalence of destructive events, and insurance companies raise premiums to remain profitable and to ensure their financial ability to cover future losses or drop clients altogether. For instance, knowing that California is highly prone to destructive wildfires, insurance companies will deny housing coverage for people in high-risk forest fire areas to avoid paying the high cost of rebuilding thousands of homes should one occur.
As climate organizers encounter a federal government unfriendly to systemic change but have made decent strides in their work with financial institutions, it is clear that targeting the private sector is imperative at this moment.
Rising insurance prices are not isolated to one region, though. Communities across the country from Kentucky to Florida to New York are now facing the brunt end of this crisis. When hurricane Ida hit New York in 2021, damages cost one woman up to $25,000 dollars out of pocket for repairs because Liberty Mutual outright rejected them coverage. This disproportionately affects low-income communities, who will face even more struggle trying to afford to pay for damages that should have been covered by their housing insurance in the first place.
Even considering the fact that the burden often falls on people purchasing insurance for their homes, increased and intensified natural disasters fundamentally have an adverse financial effect on insurance companies by making their services more expensive, which is also often accompanied by reduced coverage. Therefore, you would think that they would address the root cause of this increase in destruction—climate change.
But, many don’t. Everyday, insurance companies like Chubb, Liberty Mutual, and AIG practice hypocrisy, creating a perpetual cycle that expedites climate destruction and inequality. This is accomplished through the underwriting of fossil fuel projects, which is often cheaper for these companies because it allows them to invest and insure something deemed less “risky” that, in the short-term, will make the company more money. Insurance companies continue to underwrite pipelines for transporting fossil fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure that is often built nearby vulnerable communities. The domestic insurance industry has also invested $582 billion of assets collected through client’s premiums into the fossil fuel industry. Still, climate change, caused by the emission of those exact fossil fuels into the Earth’s atmosphere, further exacerbates and increases the frequency of the (not so) natural disasters that drive up insurance prices. Essentially, these companies contribute to the climate crisis through their financial choices, and then expect frontline communities to foot the bill.
(Graphic: Green America)
The insurance industry is one of the key pillars of our society’s reliance on fossil fuels alongside the financial institutions that bankroll it and the government agencies that sign off on its expansion. When insurance companies provide coverage for fossil fuel extraction projects, they provide insurance so that in the case of a disaster like a spill or explosion, the extraction project is protected. Without insurance coverage, corporations simply cannot continue building the infrastructure that keeps us hooked on fossil fuels. For example, last year, when Chubb dropped the coverage from the Rio Grande LNG project, AIG stepped right in as an insurer on the initiative. As climate organizers encounter a federal government unfriendly to systemic change but have made decent strides in their work with financial institutions, it is clear that targeting the private sector is imperative at this moment.
Insurance companies, especially, know the risks of climate change and are vulnerable to its effects. A report by the asset manager Conning shows that 91% of insurance executives profess “significant” concern about the climate crisis. This makes efforts to persuade insurance companies on matters of climate particularly salient and realistic during these times—especially when the public wants change. According to one study, 78% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat concerned about rising property insurance costs and 67% percent are concerned about extreme weather events. Most importantly, the vast majority of the population surveyed said that insurance executives are to blame for the aforementioned rising costs and 57% said that these costs should not be passed on to customers.
Although older generations also suffer the difficulties of accessing reliable insurance and figuring out how to pick up their lives after devastating climate disasters, Gen Z is uniquely forced to come of age without the financial expectations and infrastructure that were promised to us as part of the American economic system. Affordable mortgages and insurers that will actually cover us and provide reliable and ethical insurance now seem near-impossible to access for young people, knowing the state of our climate. This has particularly impacted Gen Z because we have grown up in a time where climate disasters are stronger, more frequent, and now something of a regular occurrence. In response to these climate events becoming normal, companies will continue to increasingly deny us housing coverage and proper insurance in hopes of saving money. This calls youth across the country to take action against the hypocrisy of these companies, calling for sustainable insurance that does not fund the fossil fuel industry.
The shift to a fossil fuel-free insurance industry will not be easy, but it is now, more than ever, a necessary step toward ensuring the common good. It is, in fact, the only ethical option on behalf of corporations that are meant to protect people’s livelihoods. As youth, we demand immediate action from the individuals and corporations in power, and to those who refuse to listen to us, we have one question: Who do you expect to pay your premiums in 50 years?
What better way to spark democratic resistance than a series of new organizing campaigns that deliver material gains for workers and agitate workers to engage in mass action such as sick-outs, protests, and recognition strikes?
Don’t let U.S. President Donald Trump’s cozy relationship with Teamsters President Sean O’Brien fool you. The new administration is a bunch of scabs—union busters of the highest order, cut from the same cloth as the radically anti-worker Reagans and Thatchers of the world.
In his frenetic and destructive first few months back in office, Donald Trump has pursued a sweeping set of anti-worker and anti-union executive actions that have our country’s oligarchs salivating. Here is a small and disturbing sampling of Trump administration actions. He:
In the midst of this overwhelming onslaught of anti-union action, some in the labor movement might be tempted to retreat—to cut our losses and hope that we get a friendlier administration and more favorable political environment in four years. Like millions of union workers across this country who recognize what’s at stake here, I believe this would be a terrible mistake. Our best defense is a good offense.
Rather than sheltering dues in rainy day funds or freezing hiring during this uncertain time, unions should pour resources into new organizing. I know from my time as a United Auto Workers (UAW) member organizing the first-ever private sector grad worker union on the West Coast that new organizing takes a real institutional commitment. It takes hiring talented and dedicated member-organizers to staff campaigns, spending money on training and leadership development programs, and funding the nuts and bolts of new organizing campaigns like legal representation and organizing materials.
Unfortunately, as Chris Bohner has written, most labor unions have largely eschewed new organizing in recent years, even as union war chests have grown to record levels. This has to change.
Investing in new organizing is the single most strategically sound decision unions can make in order to build power.
First, organized labor is historically popular right now. In a time when nearly every type of institution is hitting record lows in approval ratings, unions are at their highest level of popularity since the New Deal era. At the same time, traditionally anti-union institutions like corporations as well as mainstream institutions are losing the faith of the public. Labor can and should use this in its favor.
Additionally, some of the fastest growing sectors in terms of union density, such as the nonprofit sector, higher education, and healthcare, are among those being targeted systematically by the Trump administration and its oligarch backers. Now is the time for labor to keep its foot on the gas and redouble its efforts to organize new workers and workplaces in these sectors.
New organizing can also catalyze people’s faith in democracy and inspire broader efforts to resist oligarchic power grabs. While the Democratic Party and the news media largely fail to meet the moment, organized labor can and must fill the void through organizing new workers and workplaces. What better way to spark democratic resistance than a series of new organizing campaigns that deliver material gains for workers and agitate workers to engage in mass action such as sick-outs, protests, and recognition strikes?
This most basic expression of democratic willpower—harnessing “people power” to force change rather than beg for it—is the labor movement’s bread and butter, and it’s precisely what everyday people need to see modeled for them in order to not feel powerless. The Trump administration, following the terrifying blueprint of Project 2025, hopes that by causing maximum chaos and using state power to sow destruction on as many fronts as possible, the broad anti-fascist coalition that opposes its unpopular and authoritarian actions will fall into disarray and adopt a defensive posture. Instead, the effort to save our democracy must take a page out of Trump’s chaos playbook and deploy every tactic in the book to fight back.
By organizing new workplaces, we can tie up the time and resources of anti-union entities and actors in the short term while growing our membership and financial resources to build for the medium and long term. If other lines of defense fail, a mass labor stoppage can be the only thing preventing a plunge into full-blown authoritarianism.
Union density is still on the decline, and current density is far too low to pull off anything on the level of an effective general strike—and the bad guys know it. As union organizers know, having a credible strike threat is the foundation of any union’s ability to win its demands. We have to organize new workers, and fast.
Ultimately, we do not want a drone company that manufactures weapons that commit war crimes to operate in North Dakota.
Recently, Aviation International published a conversation between the Department of Commerce Commissioner of North Dakota and a director at Thales group. The article, titled “North Dakota: The Silicon Valley of Drone Innovation,” makes the case that North Dakota is the go-to state for drone technology.
North Dakota’s strong ties with the drone industry formed a few years ago, with the state’s goal of transforming the state into ground zero for drone technology. By taking advantage of the state, its resources, and its people, the mission to turn North Dakota into a silicon valley for drones has already produced a vast network of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) technological hubs. However, in doing so it has also entangled North Dakotans into a deep relationship with Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of the Israeli company. This relationship is not comprehensively understood by North Dakotans nor our lawmakers.
Vantis is an aerospace company founded in North Dakota with an investment from the state five years ago. It helps facilitate commercial and private drone use by “utilizing North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) towers to deploy radars and other network technology around the state, lowering development costs by utilizing existing infrastructure.” Drone technology also helps monitor flooding, which is an issue in North Dakota on an annual basis. Thus, Vantis isn’t inherently a poor investment, and investing in drone technology for farming and environmental reasons isn’t necessarily a bad idea. However, three years ago, Vantis partnered with Thales, the 11th-largest weapons manufacturer in the world. Thales has long partnered with Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems to develop drone technology for various militaries around the world. Since this initial investment by the state of North Dakota into UAS, the state’s relationship with Elbit Systems started to cement itself as well.
North Dakota’s evolving relationship with drone technology presents both significant opportunities and serious ethical concerns.
In 2016, a researcher at North Dakota State University launched an initiative to bring an Elbit drone to help with agricultural research. The project was funded by North Dakota and Elbit Systems, which planned on selling the imagery from the research. The idea was that using a larger drone, the Hermes 450, would be a more cost-effective way to use drone technology for farming. But the Hermes drone isn’t just for farming; it’s also one of Elbit’s most deployed weapons by the Israeli army in Gaza. It’s been used to surveil and target Palestinians ever since it joined the Israeli air force fleet. It can carry and deploy up to two medium-range missiles. When the conversation about slaughtered civilians in Gaza comes up, many point fingers at the weapons giant Elbit.
On February 7, CODEPINK North Dakota visited our legislators in Bismarck to talk to them about Elbit. We sought clarity regarding the extent of the collaboration between North Dakota and Elbit Systems as North Dakotans concerned about our complicity in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. What we learned was that our legislators knew—at best—about as much as we did or—at worst, and most commonly—nothing at all. State Sen. Bob Paulson (R-3) admitted to not knowing anything about Elbit Systems.
We delineated North Dakota’s disturbing relationship to Elbit—highlighting the atrocities that Elbit’s drones, particularly the Hermes 450, have been used to commit. One such atrocity was the well-documented attack on the World Central Kitchen in April 2024—widely considered to be a flagrant war crime under international law. However, Sen. Paulson denied the magnitude of Israel’s atrocities, dismissing our concerns and minimizing Israel’s responsibility with statements like: “That’s just war.” He also regurgitated Israeli propaganda, parroting the claim that Hamas uses “human shields” and put “babies in ovens” on October 7, 2023. We had to repeatedly rein in our conversation to get back to our main concern: Elbit Systems operations in North Dakota.
Our secondary concern was HB 1038, a bill to allocate $15 million in funding for the replacement of Chinese drones used by North Dakota state agencies and public institutions. Our worry is that, if passed, this bill could open up another avenue for North Dakota to deepen its relationship with Elbit Systems. We met with several other legislators over the course of the day. Some, like Sen. Randy Burckhard (R-5), were adamant that China “is out to get us,” while others, like Sen. Kathy Hogan (D-21) and Rep. Gretchen Dobervich (D-11), were far more sympathetic to our cause.
Ultimately, we do not want a drone company that manufactures weapons that commit war crimes to operate in North Dakota.
Northern Plains UAS Test Site (NPUASTS) in Grand Forks has voiced concerns about how overreliance on foreign technology could lead to disruptions if geopolitical tensions escalate. Geospatial data collected by a North Dakota drone could be hacked into and leveraged by foreign adversaries for intelligence or even used to disrupt infrastructure. If North Dakota is indeed worried about data from our UAS being hacked by a foreign adversary as a result of geopolitical tensions in the region of the technology’s origin, then we should be especially wary of sourcing our UAS from Israel.
Thankfully, HB 1038 was divided up into two separate parts in the North Dakota Senate. One part, “Division A,” included the allocation of $15 million to replace Chinese drones in North Dakota agencies and institutions. “Division B” had more to do with implementing a data management program, including an $11 million allocation to enable Vantis to ensure that data collected in North Dakota remains under state control. Division A ultimately failed in the Senate, whereas Division B passed and was signed into law by Gov. Kelly Armstrong on February 24, 2025.
Yet the reality remains. North Dakota’s evolving relationship with drone technology presents both significant opportunities and serious ethical concerns. While the state’s investment in UAS has the potential to enhance agricultural and environmental monitoring, it also links North Dakota with Elbit Systems, a company directly responsible for war crimes. The lack of transparency and awareness among state legislators about this relationship highlights the need for more informed discussions on the role of foreign technology in our state.
North Dakotans should consider the ethical implications of its partnerships and ensure that state resources are not connected to companies that are blowing up innocent men, women, and children, thereby making taxpayers complicit in such war crimes.
Children are bearing the brunt of upheaval in Washington; the destruction of Head Start will harm even more.
Children have rarely been a national priority in the United States. Lawmakers have historically chosen to set aside the needs of children, families, and educators, with Head Start being one of the few examples of meaningful investment in children’s futures. But amid recent cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services, including layoffs at the Administration for Children and Families (which funds Head Start), the future of this program is uncertain.
Effectively destroying an essential program like Head Start and dismantling the Department of Education (DOE) and other federal agencies is cruel, irresponsible, and short-sighted. Childcare costs more than ever, and Head Start and Early Head Start, which provide access to high-quality early learning programs for children from low-income backgrounds, are lifelines. Without Head Start, hundreds of thousands of children will go without safe places to learn and grow. Parents, especially women, depend on it and other forms of childcare to stay in the workforce. Unless care is available, many are forced to cut hours or leave their jobs altogether, hurting household incomes and overall economic growth.
“It’s going to affect a lot of families that are already struggling,” Early Head Start educator Sandra Dill, who runs a family childcare program in Connecticut, said recently.
State-based solutions will help chip away at the vast problems facing the early childhood education sector, but wiping away Head Start and Early Head Start will set us back for years—possibly generations—to come.
At the same time, childcare providers, including family childcare educators who run small businesses in licensed, home-based settings, are facing exorbitant and rising prices for basic supplies that they need to keep their programs running. Without much-needed funding from the federal government, many of these programs—already existing on razor-thin margins—will be at risk of shutting their doors and leaving families without care options, worsening an already dire childcare shortage.
Amid the layoffs of thousands of government employees including Head Start administrators, there will certainly be chaos and confusion in the coming weeks among programs and the families who rely on them, with a lack of understanding of how already approved funds will be distributed. This will likely be similar to what ensued amid the federal funding freeze in January, with some programs temporarily closing their doors, unable to access funding for weeks, and families going without care.
Since the pandemic, the home-based childcare educators in All Our Kin’s networks have seen a significant surge in toddlers struggling with language and learning delays. Heath and Human Services and the DOE provide critically important early intervention services, including for children aged 0 to 3. Without these programs, fewer children will have a strong start in life. More will go without healthy meals, and fewer will have opportunities for social-emotional development or be prepared to succeed in kindergarten and beyond, and will have fewer opportunities for social and emotional development. Actions to shrink these departments in the name of cost cutting could overburden states and ultimately lead to far greater societal and economic consequences.
We are encouraged by bipartisan progress at the state level. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont has proposed increased investments to help pay childcare providers competitive wages. In New York, there is a proposal from Gov. Kathy Hochul for additional funds to be set aside for family childcare providers to make renovations and repairs to their programs. And universal childcare has gained momentum in states like New York, Michigan, Oregon, Vermont, and New Mexico.
State-based solutions will help chip away at the vast problems facing the early childhood education sector, but wiping away Head Start and Early Head Start will set us back for years—possibly generations—to come.
Every child deserves a high-quality, affordable education, especially in the critical formative years of their lives. If we want a strong economy, we must save Head Start and protect the futures of the children and programs it supports.